[2026:RJ-JP:3740] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1450/2026 Insaf Ali S/o Sabir Husain, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Nayapura Baran, Police Station Kotwali Baran, Distt. Baran (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined At District Jail, Baran). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hasan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abdul Basit Naqvi, Mr. Fahad Hasan & Mr. Ishan Raj Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/01/2026 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Insaf Ali S/o Sabir Husain, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 624/2024 dated 20.08.2024 registered at Kotwali Baran District- Baran, for the offence under Sections 140(3) of BNS. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:3740] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-1450/2026] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submitted that the first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 18.09.2025. He also submitted that till date, 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, but none of them has named the present petitioner for involvement in the incident. He also submitted that the present petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was his involvement mentioned by any of the witnesses in statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that even during investigation, no recovery was effected from the petitioner. He referred to the criminal incidents of the deceased and submitted that he was having a criminal background and animosity with several persons. He further referred to the family condition of the present petitioner and submitted that the children of the present petitioner are critically ill and presently admitted in a hospital at Kota and are likely to undergo surgery. He further submitted that the present petitioner is in custody since 18.08.2024 and till date the trial has not been concluded. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. [2026:RJ-JP:3740] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-1450/2026] 6. The first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 18.09.2025 when two witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The record indicates that till date 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW-2 Nawaz Sharif, PW-4 Shoaib Ali, PW-5 Pakhar Ansari and PW- 9 Ashiq Ali were already declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. By a detailed order, we have decided the bail application on 18.09.2025. It is also apparent on record that on 18.09.2025, the bail application was opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, and his arguments clearly indicate that to prevent deceased Shaakir from surrendering to the police, the assault was committed. The specific arguments of counsel for the complainant are reproduced as under:- “7. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed the bail application of both the accused and submits that present applicants and other accused with motive to prevent deceased Shakir from surrender to police under pressure of complainant and his family have committed brutal murder of deceased and same is evident from post-mortem report. He further submits that after committing the murder of deceased, his body was thrown in a river from where body was found. He referred the condition of body as amputated putrefied body with foul odour and submits that the involvement is proved from CCTV footage as the vehicle used soon after the incident was driven by Insaf Ali whereas accused Irfan Mansuri @ Mitthu is named in report and statement of witnesses.” 8. While deciding the first bail application, we have observed as under:- “8. On basis of a complaint lodged by Zakir Hussain on 20.08.2024, about missing of his [2026:RJ-JP:3740] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-1450/2026] son from evening on 18.08.2024, who was taken from home by Illu, Amjad and Bittu. During investigation, the statement of Zakir was recorded on two occasions, first statement under section 180 of BNSS soon after the registration of report wherein three persons Illu, Amjad and Mitthu were named, and suspicion is also made on Insaf Ali. Afterwards, statements of Zakir were recorded on 24.08.2024, wherein he named four persons including present applicant after recovery of dead body. 9. It is apparent that when statements were recorded first time on 22.08.2024, there was an apprehension, as son of complainant was not traceable and when statements were recorded after recovery of dead body, then there were specific allegations. Similarly, statement of Sajid was recorded on 22.08.2024 and he named Illu, Amjad and Mitthu. The statements of Zakir Hussain and Shaqir Hussain were recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. on 19.11.2024 and both have named four persons, including present aplicants. The police has collected CCTV footage of Subhash Chowk and Arun filling station recorded on 18.08.2024. The post- mortem clearly indicates that an amputated putrefied body with foul smell was found and post-mortem was conducted on 23.08.2024. The complainant was examined as PW-1 and Shaqir Hussain as PW-2 and we have considered the statement of both the witnesses including their cross-examinations as referred by learned counsel for applicants. The list submitted by prosecution indicates that 23 witnesses were listed but some of them are formal in nature and not material witnesses. The motive explained by learned counsel for complainant indicate that these accused want to prevent deceased from surrender before the police. The four persons Irfran Mansoori @ Mitthu, Insaf Ali, Shahrukh Ali @ Illu and Amjad Ali were equally found involved in the instant case for kidnapping and murder of deceased. The grounds raised by learned counsel for applicants are subject- matter of trial and requires consideration at the time of final adjudication but not at this stage.” [2026:RJ-JP:3740] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-1450/2026] 9. We have considered the statements of PW-6 Sharafat, PW-8 Dil Nawaz, PW-10 Sher Ali. We have also considered the statements of PW-1 Jaakir Hussain and PW-2 Shahzad Hussain. 10. Learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that the petitioner- accused is in custody since 18.08.2024 and the period is approximately 18 months. The fact is already on record that the deceased was having a criminal background, but the same is not sufficient to allow the bail application. The material on record indicates that one criminal case was registered against the present petitioner. The medical record shows that Arish Raza has undergone treatment in the ENT Department of AIIMS Hospital. 11. Having taken note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the gravity of the offence, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. 12. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 13. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. [2026:RJ-JP:3740] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-1450/2026] 14. Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Insaf Ali S/o Sabir Husain, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /666